# H. Upmann: Monarchs or Sir Winstons?



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

I love Upmann Petit Coronas, Corona Majors, Conny #1 and Mag 46s. But I've never had either of the Churchill sized vitolas.

Not much on this subject in the archives here. I've read the reviews on Top25 and Cigars-Review, and the closest thing I found comparing the two is this from a Top25 review from 2003:

*"The Monarch hits you over the head with obvious taste. You have to think about the Sir Winston."*

Do you agree? What's the difference between the two? And, most importantly, which do you like better?


----------



## The Prince (Apr 9, 2005)

rdcross said:


> I love Upmann Petit Coronas, Corona Majors, Conny #1 and Mag 46s. But I've never had either of the Churchill sized vitolas.
> 
> Not much on this subject in the archives here. I've read the reviews on Top25 and Cigars-Review, and the closest thing I found comparing the two is this from a Top25 review from 2003:
> 
> ...


Both great cigars. However, the Sir Winston is superior. It has a grand taste you experience in no other habano.


----------



## gabebdog1 (Mar 9, 2005)

sir winnies rock its gonna be my B-day gift to myself in june plus the box is so pretty


----------



## The Master (Dec 26, 2004)

I stock both cigars but stopped buying the SW's years ago . The SW is more refined and a tad more complex, where the Monarch is more in your face with better nose. The Monarch is an excellent cigar and one of my favorite churchills. 

The huge price difference( 5.50 a stick ) makes the Monarch a much better value. The SW while very tasty is not in my opinion worth the stupid price they charge for them.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

Both are great cigars but Monarchs are priced towards everyday smoking where the Sir Winstons it's a shame to break up such a nice box. The last couple of SW's I smoked were on the tight side, but I haven't given up on them. The 05 Monarchs are incredible and I can't wait to finish off my 01 and 04 boxes before smoking the 05's.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

If I had to chose between the two: Sir Winstons! Oh God are they smooth........I had another one last weekend and I must say they are wonderful. H.Upmann just makes great cigars period.

ATL


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

ATLHARP said:


> H.Upmann just makes great cigars period.
> 
> ATL


I agree. The Monarch, No. 2., Sir Winston, Conn. Robusto... All great smokes that I just keep buying... Have they done a lancero before?


----------



## bigALemos (Jun 1, 2005)

ATLHARP said:


> If I had to chose between the two: Sir Winstons! Oh God are they smooth........I had another one last weekend and I must say they are wonderful. H.Upmann just makes great cigars period.
> 
> ATL


i'd agree, they're really good


----------



## CrazyFool (Oct 2, 2005)

now i have some aged Winstons ive yet to try (thank you Vic_c!!) but otherwise for now, i have to go with the MONARCH. for me it was the hype behind the sir winston that gave the nod to the Monarch.
i really expected a smoke among my favorites and at least one to give my precious RyJ Churchill a run for its crown and my few Sir W's were tight and ______ (cant pin it) (look there was a lot of hype  )

the Monarch i had no expectation and i didnt expect it to possibley be better then the RyJs so i liked it mo. i know my judgment system here is flustercucked


----------



## vic_c (Sep 7, 2005)

I have had a few Sir Winstons from '01 that were a little tight..but my box from '03 is great!

I recommend getting the Sir Winstons because I've heard they are going to discontinue the current "clasp" style wood box this year + they are great cigars!


----------



## Aaron (Nov 28, 2005)

I was gifted a SW and smoked it last year when my blog got it's millionth visitor.

I get that many visitors almost daily now... but they're Saudi hackers. 
:z


----------



## vic_c (Sep 7, 2005)

Aaron said:


> I was gifted a SW and smoked it last year when my blog got it's millionth visitor.
> 
> I get that many visitors almost daily now... but they're Saudi hackers.
> :z


 WOW a million a day! You must have smoked a few boxes of Sir Winstons by now... NICE SITE Aaron!


----------



## Aaron (Nov 28, 2005)

vic_c said:


> WOW a million a day! You must have smoked a few boxes of Sir Winstons by now... NICE SITE Aaron!


Thanks. I don't really get 1M visitors a day, but my site was bugging them enough that they hacked it twice and I can tell by my hit logs where there are many .sa (Saudi Arabia) domains coming at me, trying to find a ***** in my armor.


----------



## LasciviousXXX (Oct 12, 2004)

I say Sir Winnies all the way. I've had quite a few of both and while I am a fan of the Monarchs I would take a Sir Winston over it any day of the week.

More refined flavor, more subtle changes, overall a more enjoyable smoke.


XXX


----------



## rutkus (Mar 21, 2006)

the sir winston is a better cigar, the monarch is a better value.


----------



## broozer (Mar 23, 2006)

i'd go with the monarch. 

bruce


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Good question and with all those responses, what the hell are you going to do now - buy both? Let us know, 'cuz I'm making the same decision soon.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Ivory Tower said:


> Good question and with all those responses, what the hell are you going to do now - buy both? Let us know, 'cuz I'm making the same decision soon.


Ha! Good point. And thanks to everyone for your responses Great stuff. I believe short of perhaps MRN, which I have yet to read, we may have just created the greatest resource anywhere on the difference between these two cigars. That's pretty cool. And a huge testament to what can happen at CS.

Here's what I learned:It appears these cigars taste significantly different and the tobbaco blends are different. So, well, why should I choose? I believe my humidor deserves both! :w

But if I were to have to pick just one...Sir Winston. It sounds more in line with my tastes.


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

That's what I was thinking overall too - both sound good and deserve a spot in my humi, but I'll pick just one - Sir Winstons based on the expected good flavor.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

For some, economics may be the deciding factor between Monarch and Sir Winstons. I don't think it's necessarily fair to judge both cigars on an equal field since the Sir Winston is more of a grand cigar than the Monarch. Sir Winston is the next level up and more for the collector with its beautiful box, vs. the crappy old dress box on the Monarchs.


----------



## calistogey (Jun 14, 2005)

Other than the couple that have had slightly tight draws, the few aged Monarcas AT's that I've tried were much better than either of the two.


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

calistogey said:


> Other than the couple that have had slightly tight draws, the few aged Monarcas AT's that I've tried were much better than either of the two.


Well screw you - You're too damn late to save me now! :r I already expecting to receive some '03 Sir Winstons very soon.

(BTW - that's supposed to be funny not mean )


----------



## LasciviousXXX (Oct 12, 2004)

Ivory Tower said:


> Well screw you - You're too damn late to save me now! :r I already expecting to receive some '03 Sir Winstons very soon.


Excellent choice... you won't be dissapointed bro :2


----------



## Fredster (Jan 26, 2004)

I have some 98 Monarcas that are very good. The Sir Winston ages better and has a bit more complexity to the blend. More stright-forward toasty tobacco taste on the Monarcas. With the same age under 10 years I prefer the Monarcas. If over 10 years the Sir Winston is better IMO.


----------



## TimL (Mar 21, 2006)

rdcross said:


> Do you agree? What's the difference between the two? And, most importantly, which do you like better?


I like them both and think they are too close to compare. The Sir is more refined and both need serious aging. Given the choice I'd go with a Monarch A/T over SPB for less draw problems and better aging.


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

I hate to chime in like this, but I believe that everyone here is missing some important information.

Yes, these are both churchill cigars, but they are nothing alike. Not only are made from they entirely different leaf blends, they are made from entirely different leaves. Let me explain.

I had heard it said, and read this in more than one place, that before the existence of the Cohiba brand and triple fermentation, the H. Upmann Sir Winston was the only Habano regularly made with aged (3-5 year old) tobacco leaf. Hence the smoother, more subtly complex flavor that this stick delivers. The Monarca, on the other hand, is made from regular double fermented, BUT NOT AGED, leaf. So a Monarca and a Sir Winston from the same year should have two entirely different tobaccos in them. That's why you pay more & get a nicer presentation (varnished box); you're paying more to get more.

Now fast forward to current productions, I can not say for certain that Sir Winston is still being made from leaf that has been aged as much. I do think that recent production Sir Winston tastes younger, but still closer to a true Sir Winston than a Monarca. :2 

As an aside, before the Cohiba Lancero became the Diplomatic gift it was, the Monecristo No. 2 carried that crown.


----------



## tecnorobo (Mar 29, 2005)

MoTheMan said:


> I hate to chime in like this, but I believe that everyone here is missing some important information.
> 
> Yes, these are both churchill cigars, but they are nothing alike. Not only are made from they entirely different leaf blends, they are made from entirely different leaves. Let me explain.
> 
> ...


you really are a live perlmans guide huh? only better


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

tecnorobo said:


> you really are a live perlmans guide huh? only better


I really have read an awful lot of books on cigars.

Just how I retain all this information in my head, I don't know.


----------



## doohnibor (Nov 19, 2005)

Though I'm a fan of both, the Sir Winnie is far superior in my book. I've recently smoked some from '01, '02 and '03 and they've all been great.


----------



## teeznutz (Jan 17, 2006)

Decisions/Decisions.....They both sound good....Box split anyone?


----------

